WotC: Get Rid of the Tactical Encounter Format

[Cam Banks]

EtCR boggles the mind with the sheer amount of repetition and inefficient use of space. "It's another encounter... with some wolves. And some Strahd zombies. With their stat blocks, again. And their tactics, again. Oh, look. Version 341 of Strahd's stats, this time with his bat form also listed."

I exaggerate, but not that much.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Khairn]

Personally, I dislike the new format so much, I refuse to buy any of the newer products using it, and have done so for the past year. Ravenloft, Castle Greyhawk, Demonweb Pits -- all books I was interested in, but didn't want to deal with that godawful formatting of "half the info in front, half in back," so I passed them by, and if I ever want to run them I'll extrapolate off the old ones. I've mentioned it before, even when people were touting its praises. It reeks!

Completely agree.

I bought 1 book that uses that format "Cormyr - Tearing of the Weave" and I'll never buy another.

 

[Drammattex]

I'm curious to know how the "tactical encounter format" in Ravenloft & others is different from the way it's presented in The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde (which is the only one I own).

From browsing Lich Queen & others, the format looks similar to Slaughtergarde, although I never had to do any flipping on Slaughtergarde. I loved it because everything I needed was always right there in front of me.

So how do other modules differ from that, in regards to the tactical encounter format?

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Second, some encounters are enhanced by the format, and some are actively hurt. Don't use them for them. For example, Nic Logue has pointed out it fails for chase scenes.

I have found that the lack of any game mechanic that allows a PC to modify their speed on a round to round basis makes having a tactical chase of any sort impossible. Either one character moves faster than another, and can choose to either attack or retreat with impunity, or the two characters have identical move speeds, and the chase becomes a marathon more than a sprint and ends when someone becomes fatigued.

Anyway, sorry for the derail. It is just that this lack is a bit of a sticking point for me.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Nebulous]

It sucks!


With it, one has to flip back and forth from the descriptive section to the tactical section. Sometimes, the treasure is listed in one section. Sometimes, it is listed in the other. Sometimes, descriptive information about the location is in one section, sometimes in the other.


WotC. Try to organize your information better. Having each encounter in one section each might not be perfect, but it is a lot better than having it in two different sections.

Star Wars Dawn of Defiance does the same thing, and i also greatly dislike the flipping back and forth. I'm considering just reshuffling my papers and putting them side by side. Not so easy with a printed book

 

[KarinsDad]

Just wondering, is the complaint about the tactical encounter format, or is the complaint that flipping back and forth is required because the tactical encounter format is not next to the room description?

For me, it is because they are not next to each other.

There are some things that I like about the tactical encounter format, which I hope will be retained:

1. Visual of encounter area, and suggested placement of monsters and PCs.
2. Special terrain elements, and how these can affect, or be made use of by, monsters and PCs.
3. Having all the encounter-related information on a single sheet of paper (admittedly, this does not always happen) is also a bonus.

If the problem is flipping, then a separate booklet can help.

I think the separate booklet idea is not a very good idea.

It will get lost, even during the game. It will get dog earred.

And, it doesn't really solve the problem. Flipping from one book to the next is nearly as bad as flipping back 10 pages. Sure, I can have them side by side, but I do not use a GM screen and it just takes up space that I would have to cover in front of me that I'd rather not use up.

I agree with your assessment that elements of it should stay, it is just my contention that those elements should all be in one single place in the book for convenience.

Most of the time there isn't enough room for the stat blocks of all the enemies, a description of everything in the room, all the treasure, a map, and a tactical assessment of the area that can fit into 1 or 2 pages. Often some of the information pushes it to 3. As soon as it is 3 pages, you have to flip during an encounter.

I disagree. Usually, the descriptive section is 1/8 page to 1/2 page. And, the tactical section is often 1 page. When the tactical section is 2 pages, it often has a lot of page white space in it. 3 required pages would be rare. And even when it occurs, it would be better flipping a single page than flipping back 10 or more pages in the book.


Here is the problem for the designers.

In order for the sections to be combined, the encounters have to be:

1 1, 2, 1 1, 3 1, 2, etc.

They cannot be:

1 2, 2, 1, etc. because the 2 pages in this example go front and back on a single page in the book (i.e. it has to be flipped mid-encounter) as opposed to left page and right page.

This forces the designers to put two small 1 page encounters next to each other. They probably consider this limiting.


However, with the new 4E concept of "wide open dungeons" where enemies can approach from multiple directions, it really doesn't matter that much. Most of the encounters should be 1 page encounters (where enemies can reinforce each other) anyway. Plus, it is not so much that adventurers then become linear, it is that the DM just needs to go to the proper page when the players are in a given area of the dungeon. Rooms (i.e. encounters) do not have to be perfectly labeled sequentially through the module.

Quite frankly, enounters that are even 2 pages (map included) should be somewhat rare. In the current 3.5 format, they are putting a lot of fluff and page white space into an encounter that just does not need to be there. Encounters, especially with the 4E smaller stat block, should almost always fit on 1 page, 2 pages at most. They could even put in a tiny "min-map" in one corner where the current encounter location is highlighted on the larger map and still have a boatload of room left over for an encounter.

It is just a matter of efficiency.


Btw, one other problem I noticed with the current 3.5 version. There are sometimes conflicts between information in the descriptive section and the tactical section, especially the map. If it were all on one or two pages, the editors would have an easier time of checking for accuracy.

 

[Mercule]

I write my own stuff, and I haven't found old or new modules particularly helpful... but there's a guy in my group who occasionally DMs, and he loves the new format.

Maybe it's better for beginners, but frustratingly verbose for experienced DMs?

As a very experienced DM, I'm going to go with: it helps DMs whose strengths lie outside of tactics.

I don't suck -- I'm especially good with skirmish types -- but tactical combat, especially as the math works in 3E just ain't my best. I'm much, much better at the storyline, adding and applying history, and politics.

I've found the new layout to be a benefit for my own planning, especially when combined with the encounter templates from Dungeonscape. Both encourage me to do a bit more thought about the combat portion of the encounters before the session, rather than just react to the players' actions.

For running a published adventure, though, I'm not sure I'd get much more from the tactical format than a "tactics" blurb. Of course, I've run several encounters from published sources that had tactics that even I could immediately see were only appropriate for drunken morons. There are no silver bullets.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Oakheart Wrote: Plus, the map might show what looks like rocks but you aren't sure how big they are. Do they count as difficult terrain or are they so big that they require a climb check? How difficult are they to climb?

Are you serious? Even if you couldn't find this listed once in the module, the DMG or the Terrain books, you couldn't possibly make this up? You REALLY need to know every minor adjustment to every skill for every encounter? This just made me laugh...sorry, but right there is one of the probs with 3E if a DM cannot make that call. Even an inexperienced one. (Edit: Other than Stewie Griffin of course).

Player: "Tordek charges the orcs".
DM: "Oh it appears there is rubble on the map....What do I do? Ahhhh, this whole encounter could be ruined".

Seriously? I always ask for balance checks for moving over bodies, diff terrain, etc. I is VERY easy to make up if you know the basic concept of skills.

This sort of stuff is for miniatures games....not the roleplaying game.

C

 

[Dykstrav]

I really dislike the new format, mostly because it's an insane amount of superfluous, useless detail for most encounters.

That much detail might be nice for the climax of the adventure where you're fighting the necromancer, his dracolich ally, and hordes of demonic minions atop a flaming tower in the Abyss. For something like an encounter with three goblins in a 20 x 20 chamber in a typical dungeon, it's a waste of space. Honestly, I'd rather get a five-sentence blurb than slog through a two-page spread of an encounter that's being jazzed up.

I don't even want to get started with Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. A 3.5 remake of the classic I6 Ravenloft was the one product that I wished would get made and I've never gotten over the disappointment. I thought there was no possible way that Ravenloft could be screwed up, but the confusing layout and shameless plot coupons made me sick. Whoever thought of reducing Donavich and Madam Eva to combat encounters deserves a firm punch in the throat.

On a more constructive note, I love the format of Rappan Athuk Reloaded. It's presented in three seperate books: one is just the maps, one is just the monsters, and one is the actual room descriptions/monster tactics and the like. It's a breeze to run. Really, big adventures should use a format more like this in my opinion.

 

[FireLance]

That much detail might be nice for the climax of the adventure where you're fighting the necromancer, his dracolich ally, and hordes of demonic minions atop a flaming tower in the Abyss. For something like an encounter with three goblins in a 20 x 20 chamber in a typical dungeon, it's a waste of space. Honestly, I'd rather get a five-sentence blurb than slog through a two-page spread of an encounter that's being jazzed up.

You're right that the level of detail provided in the tactical encounter format is probably unnecessary for a small encounter. However, I think it ties in nicely with what is likely to happen in 4e. The encounter design philosophy seems to be that each encounter should be interesting in itself instead of simply being attrition to wear the party down before the climactic fight. Hence, we're likely to see fewer, but more complicated encounters. So, instead of half a dozen iterations of three goblins in 20 ft. by 20 ft. rooms, we'll see six interconnected rooms of varying dimensions containing chairs that are treated as difficult terrain, tables that can be jumped on to gain a height advantage, cupboards that can be toppled to damage enemies or create obstructions, as well as a bugbear, a hobgoblin warlord, a goblin rogue, a goblin wizard, two wolves, and a dozen goblin minions, all of whom will gradually become alerted and appear on scene as the encounter progresses.